What Americans Think about Evolution

[Enai de a lukal]

Oh yeah, mutations based on what??

I don't understand the question. What is my belief regarding mutations based on, or what are mutations themselves based on?

I said "evolution depends on abiogenesis", and that prompted you to say "the theory of evolution makes no claims about how life arose", which has nothing to do with evolution depending on abiogenesis.

Think about it again. If evolution makes no claims about how life arose, then it is not contingent or dependent upon any particular claims about how life arose; but then, abiogenesis is a claim about how life arose. Evolution, then, is not dependent upon abiogenesis, special creation, or any other claim about how life arose- evolution is dependent upon life arising somehow, that's it.

 

[McBell]

I said "evolution depends on abiogenesis", and that prompted you to say "the theory of evolution makes no claims about how life arose", which has nothing to do with evolution depending on abiogenesis.

:biglaugh:

It's like a train wreck...

:biglaugh:

You do not want to stare, but you just cannot look away.

:biglaugh:

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Thats the point, if he claimed it, it would be true...just like when Gen 1:1 claimed it, we found out that it is true.

I claim that christianity is false. You would agree that is true? Because I claimed it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't understand the question. What is my belief regarding mutations based on, or what are mutations themselves based on?

Those mutations;, a new "kind" of animal is not being created now, is there?

Think about it again. If evolution makes no claims about how life arose, then it is not contingent or dependent upon any particular claims about how life arose; but then, abiogenesis is a claim about how life arose. Evolution, then, is not dependent upon abiogenesis, special creation, or any other claim about how life arose- evolution is dependent upon life arising somehow, that's it.

lukal, I want you to follow me on this one, and address everything that I say point by point, ok?

1. If God does not exist, then life arose naturally from nonliving material (without intelligence)

2. Science has not demonstrated how or why life could have naturally arisen from nonliving material (without intelligence)

3. Conclusion: So, based on #1 and #2, the premise "Life originated from nonliving material (without intelligence)", could be a FALSE premise.

You follow me so far? Now so far, those are "facts", right?

Now...if the above argument is true, then naturalistic evolution (the view that life originated from nonliving material and evolved to x, y, and z) cannot be a fact, naturalistic evolution depends on life from non-life.

My argument is AGAINST evolution without divine intervention. If you believe that evolution is a method used by a divine being, then fine, I have no problem with that (even though I disagree). God can use whatever means he want to use.

What I am against is both evolution and abiogenesis WITHOUT divine intervention. The problem is it took about 30 pages in to the discussion for you people to say "well, god could have used evolution"....yeah, he could have used it, but my argument is against naturalism/atheism.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I claim that christianity is false. You would agree that is true? Because I claimed it.

The difference is the claim that the universe began to exist can be scientifically proven.

Meanwhile, your claim that Christianity is false cannot be scientifically proven.

Night and Day difference, don't you think?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Those mutations;, a new "kind" of animal is not being created now, is there?




lukal, I want you to follow me on this one, and address everything that I say point by point, ok?

1. If God does not exist, then life arose naturally from nonliving material (without intelligence)

2. Science has not demonstrated how or why life could have naturally arisen from nonliving material (without intelligence)

3. Conclusion: So, based on #1 and #2, the premise "Life originated from nonliving material (without intelligence)", could be a FALSE premise.

You follow me so far? Now so far, those are "facts", right?

Now...if the above argument is true, then naturalistic evolution (the view that life originated from nonliving material and evolved to x, y, and z) cannot be a fact, naturalistic evolution depends on life from non-life.

My argument is AGAINST evolution without divine intervention. If you believe that evolution is a method used by a divine being, then fine, I have no problem with that (even though I disagree). God can use whatever means he want to use.

What I am against is both evolution and abiogenesis WITHOUT divine intervention. The problem is it took about 30 pages in to the discussion for you people to say "well, god could have used evolution"....yeah, he could have used it, but my argument is against naturalism/atheism.

All matter is non-living. It only appears more or less lifelike under certain circumstances. Someday science will realize this fact too. Until then we will be forced to listen to the same old..."Well, if science can't create living matter from non-living matter then that means God must have done it."

I think it is somehow human nature to think that what we call life is so special or unique that means it must somehow only be derived through magical or mysterious means. I suppose that's where we get this emergent "phenomena" label from. Yes lifelike forms are emergent, but there is nothing phenomenal about it. It is simply chemical reactions in matter. Nothing more, nothing less.

In a way, even science needs to make this reality check.


---

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Those mutations;, a new "kind" of animal is not being created now, is there?

That's irrelevant; you asked whether I've ever seen any slightly different animals being born- I pointed out that I don't really observe ANYTHING being born, but the existence of mutations (i.e. "slightly different") in humans and animals is well documented.

And regarding a new species (not "kind", this is a meaningless term in biology) emerging, we've observed that too; see the links I provided you.

1. If God does not exist, then life arose naturally from nonliving material (without intelligence)

Sure.

2. Science has not demonstrated how or why life could have naturally arisen from nonliving material (without intelligence)

3. Conclusion: So, based on #1 and #2, the premise "Life originated from nonliving material (without intelligence)", could be a FALSE premise.

Sure.

You follow me so far? Now so far, those are "facts", right?

Now...if the above argument is true, then naturalistic evolution (the view that life originated from nonliving material and evolved to x, y, and z) cannot be a fact, naturalistic evolution depends on life from non-life.

There is no such thing as "naturalistic evolution" as you describe here; "the view that life originated from nonliving material" is abiogenesis, and "the view that life... evolved to x, y, and z" is evolution. These are separate, distinct hypotheses- the former has not been adequately corroborated while the latter has. And abiogenesis could be false, and evolution could still be true, since if God created the first organisms, who subsequently evolved by the process described by the theory of evolution, then evolution would still be true. But if evolution could be true and abiogenesis false, then evolution clearly doesn't "depend on" abiogenesis. Capiche?

What I am against is both evolution and abiogenesis WITHOUT divine intervention.

Unfortunately, merely pointing out that abiogenesis could be false doesn't really get you anywhere. Yes, it could be false; but we have good reasons to be optimistic. At least it is a viable explanation, whereas "God did it" is not, since IF explanations are propositions AND mysteries beg questions rather than answer them AND X is the greatest mystery (i.e. theos), then X neither explains nor justifies why anything happens.

The problem is it took about 30 pages in to the discussion for you people to say "well, god could have used evolution"....yeah, he could have used it, but my argument is against naturalism/atheism.

Then you should probably stop saying that you're arguing against evolution.

 

[fantome profane]

Now...if the above argument is true, then naturalistic evolution (the view that life originated from nonliving material and evolved to x, y, and z) cannot be a fact, naturalistic evolution depends on life from non-life.

My argument is AGAINST evolution without divine intervention. If you believe that evolution is a method used by a divine being, then fine, I have no problem with that (even though I disagree). God can use whatever means he want to use.

What I am against is both evolution and abiogenesis WITHOUT divine intervention. The problem is it took about 30 pages in to the discussion for you people to say "well, god could have used evolution"....yeah, he could have used it, but my argument is against naturalism/atheism.

And this is just the problem. When people talk about the theory of evolution they are not talking about metaphysical naturalism. And this is the fundamental misunderstanding that runs all through this debate. One side is arguing for evolution, and the other side is arguing about "God". But the two ideas are not in conflict. We are not even talking about the same subject.

If you could convince me that "God" exists, that would not convince me that evolution is false.

If you could convince me that evolution is false, that would not convince me that "God" exists.

If it is your intention to argue against atheism, do so. But you can't get there by denying evolution.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's irrelevant; you asked whether I've ever seen any slightly different animals being born- I pointed out that I don't really observe ANYTHING being born, but the existence of mutations (i.e. "slightly different") in humans and animals is well documented.

So, what human has been observed to be slightly different from other humans?

And regarding a new species (not "kind", this is a meaningless term in biology) emerging, we've observed that too; see the links I provided you.

Yeah, the term "kind" is only meaningless if you go in a pet store and ask for a dog, but are brought out a snake. It wouldn't be so meaningless then now would it.

There is no such thing as "naturalistic evolution" as you describe here; "the view that life originated from nonliving material" is abiogenesis, and "the view that life... evolved to x, y, and z" is evolution. These are separate, distinct hypotheses- the former has not been adequately corroborated while the latter has.


And abiogenesis could be false, and evolution could still be true, since if God created the first organisms, who subsequently evolved by the process described by the theory of evolution, then evolution would still be true. But if evolution could be true and abiogenesis false, then evolution clearly doesn't "depend on" abiogenesis. Capiche?

Unfortunately, merely pointing out that abiogenesis could be false doesn't really get you anywhere. Yes, it could be false; but we have good reasons to be optimistic. At least it is a viable explanation, whereas "God did it" is not, since IF explanations are propositions AND mysteries beg questions rather than answer them AND X is the greatest mystery (i.e. theos), then X neither explains nor justifies why anything happens.

But my position is against the view that life originated NATURALLY WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN. And don't sit there and make it seem as if that is not a position that is held by naturalists and atheists.

Pardon my french by what the HELL do you think Richard Dawkins is? He is a naturalist. He believes that life came from non-life and that evolution happens naturally as a result of natural selection, no intelligent design needed. No God, no Deity, NATURALLY. The position is held by MANY people.

That is what I am against. Now, if that position don't apply to you, then I am not TALKING about you, nor to you. If you are willing to CONSIDER the possibility of God in the theory of evolution. Fine, at least you are half way there. But whether or not God had his hand in the thing is another debate.

Then you should probably stop saying that you're arguing against evolution.

As long as I believe evolution is a lie, why should I stop arguing against it?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

All matter is non-living. It only appears more or less lifelike under certain circumstances. Someday science will realize this fact too. Until then we will be forced to listen to the same old..."Well, if science can't create living matter from non-living matter then that means God must have done it."

I think it is somehow human nature to think that what we call life is so special or unique that means it must somehow only be derived through magical or mysterious means. I suppose that's where we get this emergent "phenomena" label from. Yes lifelike forms are emergent, but there is nothing phenomenal about it. It is simply chemical reactions in matter. Nothing more, nothing less.

In a way, even science needs to make this reality check.

Oh, the "life doesn't exist" guy. Howdy.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The difference is the claim that the universe began to exist can be scientifically proven.

Meanwhile, your claim that Christianity is false cannot be scientifically proven.

Night and Day difference, don't you think?

1. No it can't.

2. No its not.

You are saying that simply "claiming" something makes it true. So I claimed something. Now your saying it has to be backed by science? Weird how people claim evolution is true and its backed by science. "proved" by science if you want to stoop to the incorrect usage of the words. For example we KNOW that evolution is correct. We simply do not know how the universe "began" if it did at all. Its a huge unknown for science right now. Any calculations and predictions of any kind about the big bang and the time "before" (contradiction of words) breaks down any kind of math or science we know of.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So, what human has been observed to be slightly different from other humans?

Well, this guy, for one-

Yeah, the term "kind" is only meaningless if you go in a pet store and ask for a dog, but are brought out a snake. It wouldn't be so meaningless then now would it.

The pet store is not the field of biology. The term "kind" is ambiguous, and useless in biology. In biology we talk about species. And we've observed new species emerging.

But my position is against the view that life originated NATURALLY WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

That's fine. That isn't the theory of evolution.

And don't sit there and make it seem as if that is not a position that is held by naturalists and atheists.

I won't.

Pardon my french by what the HELL do you think Richard Dawkins is? He is a naturalist. He believes that life came from non-life and that evolution happens naturally as a result of natural selection, no intelligent design needed. No God, no Deity, NATURALLY. The position is held by MANY people.

Ok, and?

That is what I am against. Now, if that position don't apply to you, then I am not TALKING about you, nor to you.

Except, you've made numerous specific claims about evolution that are demonstrably and patently false- such as the one we've just corrected, that evolution "depends on" abiogenesis. It does not.

As long as I believe evolution is a lie, why should I stop arguing against it?

Well, then you may want to start arguing against things the theory of evolution actually says.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As long as I believe evolution is a lie, why should I stop arguing against it?

What he is saying is that you aren't arguing against evolution. You are arguing against some kind of imaginary created pseudo-science that has been spoon fed to you by your religious leaders. What you think "evolution" is is not actually the truth. People have explained it to you but your not interested in learning what evolution is.

Are you afraid that if you recognize the actual evidence you will be unable to continue raving against it?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Are you afraid that if you recognize the actual evidence you will be unable to continue raving against it?

Lol. Just like he didn't have much to say after I gave my expanation as to what Life is...or isn't.

 

[shawn001]

So, what human has been observed to be slightly different from other humans?



Yeah, the term "kind" is only meaningless if you go in a pet store and ask for a dog, but are brought out a snake. It wouldn't be so meaningless then now would it.



But my position is against the view that life originated NATURALLY WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN. And don't sit there and make it seem as if that is not a position that is held by naturalists and atheists.

Pardon my french by what the HELL do you think Richard Dawkins is? He is a naturalist. He believes that life came from non-life and that evolution happens naturally as a result of natural selection, no intelligent design needed. No God, no Deity, NATURALLY. The position is held by MANY people.

That is what I am against. Now, if that position don't apply to you, then I am not TALKING about you, nor to you. If you are willing to CONSIDER the possibility of God in the theory of evolution. Fine, at least you are half way there. But whether or not God had his hand in the thing is another debate.



As long as I believe evolution is a lie, why should I stop arguing against it?

"So, what human has been observed to be slightly different from other humans?"

In the past we know for a fact more then one species of humans were living on the planet together.


If you don't believe in naturalism, you don't believe in the laws of nature? So you don't believe in gravity because that is naturalism?

Your personal "belief system" has nothing to do with the billions of facts that support evolution.

"Species

While the exact number of early human species is debated, on this page are links to summaries of the early human species accepted by most scientists. Click on any species to learn more about it.

Below the summaries is a chart showing the time span during which fossils of each species have been found."

Species | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program


Human Family Tree

Human Family Tree | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program


Genetic Evidence

DNA

Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[shawn001]

"DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right
Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time"

"It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us."

So this isn't about science for you its about your personal belief, because your disregarding the billions of facts that support evolution and in fact that the whole universe has evolved and is still evolving, including humans.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1. No it can't.

2. No its not.

You are saying that simply "claiming" something makes it true. So I claimed something. Now your saying it has to be backed by science? Weird how people claim evolution is true and its backed by science. "proved" by science if you want to stoop to the incorrect usage of the words. For example we KNOW that evolution is correct. We simply do not know how the universe "began" if it did at all. Its a huge unknown for science right now. Any calculations and predictions of any kind about the big bang and the time "before" (contradiction of words) breaks down any kind of math or science we know of.

Show me an example of an animal producing something different than what it is. As a matter of fact, I will make it easy for you...explain to me how can a dog that is alive today every get to the point of producing a non-dog. Explain to me how can that happen??

I will patiently wait.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, this guy, for one-

Ok, so this poor kids children should expect to have hands just like his father, and so on and so forth, right? Dude, gimme a break.

The pet store is not the field of biology. The term "kind" is ambiguous, and useless in biology. In biology we talk about species. And we've observed new species emerging.

Oh it isn't useless, it is just another word...look, you know how in biology things get categorized in about a million different categories....mammal...reptile...carnivore..herbivore...family...genus...species...subspecies, etc.

I am sure the word "kind" as in the context I ALWAYS use it in will fall under one of these million categories.

That's fine. That isn't the theory of evolution.

Well, tell that to Dawkins and the mainstream evolutionists that holds this position. If the position wasn't held, then I wouldn't be attacking it.

Except, you've made numerous specific claims about evolution that are demonstrably and patently false- such as the one we've just corrected, that evolution "depends on" abiogenesis. It does not.

Without intelligent design, sorry charlie, it does. Ok, how about this, how about we just say the Christian God used evolution as a means of creation. I am fine with that. Cool?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Lol. Just like he didn't have much to say after I gave my expanation as to what Life is...or isn't.

So you really don't have the right to live, since you aren't living anyway? There are so may angels i can go with that hahaha.

 

[McBell]

Show me an example of an animal producing something different than what it is. As a matter of fact, I will make it easy for you...explain to me how can a dog that is alive today every get to the point of producing a non-dog. Explain to me how can that happen??

It has already been explained to you in several other threads.
Why would any one think you are going to do anything other than close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and start humming?
You know, like you have done every time you are shown to be flat out wrong?

I will patiently wait.

:biglaugh: